Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Robert De BENEDICTIS, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Massaud RAHBAR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered June 1, 1998, awarding plaintiffs a total of $332,128.82 upon defendant's failure to appear at an inquest as to damages, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered May 27, 1998, denying defendant's motion to vacate his default, and order, same court and Justice, entered January 16, 1998, granting plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, the facts, and in the exercise of discretion, without costs, the judgment vacated, the motion to vacate the default granted, and the matter remanded for a new inquest as to damages. Appeal from the May 27, 1998 order, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed within the appeal from the ensuing judgment.
The grant of plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment as to liability was correct since it rested upon an interpretation of the parties' agreements that was consistent with the parties' intent as made clearly manifest in the terms of such agreements (see, e.g., U.S. Bldg. Maintenance Co. v. State of New York, 65 A.D.2d 892, 410 N.Y.S.2d 186).
The motion court should have found that defendant had offered a valid excuse for failing to appear at the inquest on damages. Defendant was present before the referee but his counsel had sent a message that he was appearing in another courtroom on a different matter, and intended to appear for the inquest as soon as the other case was completed. It was improper for the referee to refuse defendant the opportunity to participate in the inquest when defense counsel arrived only a few moments after the proceeding had begun. CPLR 2005 and 3012(d) empower the courts to exercise discretion in determining motions to vacate defaults emanating from law office failure. Here, it was an improvident exercise of discretion by the motion court to deny defendant's motion to vacate when he established a reasonable excuse for his failure to timely appear.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 01, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)